linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] x86/cpu for v5.17

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 10 Jan 2022 12:15:34 -0800
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc:     Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>, x86-ml <x86@...nel.org>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@...ux.intel.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
        "Shutemov, Kirill" <kirill.shutemov@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] x86/cpu for v5.17

On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 12:10 PM Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com> wrote:
>
> There are four basic options here for TDX:
>
> 1. Paper over the #VE in the #VE handler itself

Ahh, I saw it, but didn't really react to the fact that unlike the
other 'wrmsrl_safe()' cases, it takes #VE instead of #GP.

I do think that perhaps just doing fixup_exception() in the #VE
handler is the most obvious case. It's not like exceptions are meant
to be somehow specific to #GP.

But hey, I don't really care that deeply. I just reacted to this all
looking odd, and I've already done the pull. So it's not like I'm
NAK'ing the whole vendor test, it was just surprising to me.

So I don't want people to feel like they have to do that wrmsrl_safe()
thing, or add a feature flag or anything. I see why it happened now,
and I may think it's a bit odd still, but it's really not a huge deal.

                   Linus